Archives

Links

Category: Immigration

You would think a bill with “border security” in the title would be a surefire win with conservative Members of Congress. But, it’s easy to give a bill a deceptive name that doesn’t truly reflect it’s full intentions.

As conservatives Members huddle in talks in the newly minted House Freedom Caucus, so too do establishment Republicans hell bent on keeping their agenda afloat. But transparency is the key to all things government so let’s talk about what this “border security” bill really is.

The border security provisions in the bill aren’t bad ideas, they’re just not good enough. More moderate Republicans like McCaul and his supporters aren’t committed to crafting hardcore immigration legislation that substantively combats Obama’s awful policies.

Sen. Jeff Sessions has been a vocal opponent of the bill and a voice for conservatives in the fight to do more, noting how little McCaul’s bill does to tackle Obama’s amnesty policies, which are the main issue at stake now. Sessions has said:

Surely, Congress must not allow the president a single dime to carry out an illegal order that Congress has rejected and which supplants the laws Congress has passed.

The opposition is gathering steam. A vote on the bill was pushed back from this week. GOP leadership claimed it was due to inclement weather but insiders believe they feared a lack of support. So, they are likely scrambling behind the scenes now, attempting to rally more Members to support the bill before moving forward.

The bill did pass last week in the House Homeland Security Committee, which McCaul chairs, but it’s anyone’s guess whether they can gain needed support in the House now. As one conservative member, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) said, it’s a “show horse, not a work horse.”

Are GOP leaders trying to fool the American people into thinking they’re actually doing something? Americans certainly expect that they will make bold moves on this issue, considering they just elected a GOP majority in both houses with these very reforms in mind.

The bottom line is this: The GOP needs to stop trying to prove their doing something — and actually DO it. This issue will affect our country for a long time to come and it’s worth heading back to the drawing board and presenting something with true, lasting value that will put us back on the right track.

Lawmakers have one month to pass a discretionary funding measure for the Department of Homeland Security that denies funding and resources for President Obama’s amnesty programs. Although the House-passed DHS appropriations bill (H.R. 240) 1 has yet to be considered in the Senate, Politico reported some Republicans were already “exploring ways of escaping their political jam on immigration, with steps that could avoid a funding cutoff for the Department of Homeland Security while letting conservatives vent their anger at President Barack Obama.” Such actions are premature, as Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) explained to the Washington Examiner:

“You usually don’t know for sure where these fights wind up until you have them. And this is an important one for us to have. We need to have this fight, and then we’ll see where it goes.”

After the most interesting election for Speaker of the House in years, John Boehner won again and promised he would fight President Obama’s executive amnesty “tooth and nail.”

Many are skeptical of that promise, wondering if Boehner and his leadership friends will truly stand up for conservative principles in the face of the coming 2016 elections.

The first test for Republicans comes this week, when Rep. Michael McCaul’s border security bill comes up for a vote. It sounds good from the outset but key conservative leaders like Sen. Jeff Sessions — newly appointed chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration — aren’t so sure about that.

The bill is reported to provide multi-billions for drones, radars, surveillance systems, fencing and more — but Sessions said it “fail[ed] to include the measures necessary to fulfill its promises.”

Even though McCaul calls it the “toughest border security bill ever set before Congress,” it’s clear that conservative leaders want to get this right the first time.

After Obama’s amnesty passed last year against major opposition, they know there’s little room for error when it comes to re-establishing a solid immigration reform plan for the future. By placing Sessions in a high level position on the immigration issue, it’s clear Republicans are serious about taking a hard line stance.

The McCaul bill, however, just isn’t good enough.

“Democrats fight with more passion in defense of illegal immigrants than Republicans fight in defense of American workers,” said Sessions recently.

What exactly is the problem with the McCaul bill? Sessions says it’s a bad use of taxpayer money to put more into the border Obama’s policies have moved the problem inside the country, with amnesty for up to 5 million and permits for more to enter legally.

As The Daily Caller reported from one Hill staffer who opposes the bill, “Even if additional spending and border guards catch more migrants, Obama’s deputies will likely release them and give them work permits unless the laws are changed.”

Sessions isn’t alone in his concern. Rep. Steve King (R-IA), Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) and Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) have all expressed doubts about the bill. Fleming claimed it has “too many loopholes” and many conservatives agree.

With less than 2 years left in his Presidency, Obama is on a destructive policy pathway and it’s up to conservatives in Congress to stand strong for foundational principles on immigration that will have a lasting legacy.

If this border security bill isn’t good enough, they need to create something that is — and get the rest of the GOP on board.

It is what America was founded on. When the first Pilgrims left England, they did so because they faced two options: open revolution or immigrate. On the heels of the English Revolution, they chose immigration and left England.

However, when the British government began attacking freedoms of their descendants in the colonies, revolution was the only option left. There was, in their descendant’s minds’, no place else to immigrate to.

Out of this revolution, our nation was formed. Influenced by political theorists like John Locke and his Two Treatises of Government as well as Samuel Rutherford’s Lex Rex (The Law is King), the Founders vision was of an ordered, moral and structured society in which government played a limited and constrained role.

It was never intended to be a panacea used to cure societal ills. It was a necessary evil meant to constrain society and be constrained itself.

Jump forward 200 plus years and you find a completely different government, one that overreaches into virtually ever facet of our lives.

We live in a Nanny State where the ascendancy of individual freedom and choice are being replaced by a utilitarian “greater good.”

We have the Patriot Act, the TSA and NSA. We have 110 million Americans on welfare, a number that brings to mind Alexis de Tocqueville’s statement in Democracy in America:

[Democracy] can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy.

As we slide into a monitored welfare state, our government daily loses track of visa holders from hostile nations, illegal immigrants entering our country without threat of being sent back to their home country and border checkpoints over 50 miles into our sovereign territory.

Taxation, the spark that lit the fires of America Revolution, has spiraled even further out of control with the abuses of power of the Internal Revenue Service. As the IRS scandal continues to unfold, it’s clear that this is a simple cause and affect that the Founders wished to avoid at all costs. To them, limited government was possible due to low taxes. With limited resources, government could not grow and overreach its bounds. Now we live in an era where if something moves, the government wants to tax it and it has created a massive vehicle for doing so.

Why? A good starting point to answering this question is the de Tocqueville quote above.

The Nanny State is not a creation of the Obama Administration. Both parties are to blame as both have grown government for their own purposes, not that of the American taxpayer.

The equation in this scenario is not Republican versus Democrat, shirts versus skins. It is the American taxpayer versus the Ruling Class in Washington and if we are to beat it, it is going to take continual vigilance and effort to roll back the Nanny State they have put in place.

Let’s be very clear on something. When the Republican-controlled United States House of Representatives voted 236-191 to defund President Obama’s executive order giving amnesty to illegal immigrants last week, only a minority of its members did so out of principle.

The remainder, especially the GOP leadership, signaled their votes were not against amnesty. In spite of campaign rhetoric that suggests otherwise, they want it as a payoff for their friends at the Chamber of Commerce. They just don’t want the President stepping on their toes to do so. More importantly, they have to find a way to thread the needle so as to fool (they hope) their conservative base, a base adamantly opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

It was the conundrum of the entire 2014 political cycle for the Establishment. With their friends at the Chamber of Commerce pushing “comprehensive” immigration reform on the Hill in Washington, DC and playing heavily in primaries against conservative candidates, it was clear that the Chamber and Establishment had one objective in mind this election season: to elect a majority of amnesty friendly Republicans.

The trick was getting them past the electorate, which, as we have noted, was accomplished by telling voters what they wanted to hear, not what they were actually going to do.

In fact, the Chamber’s political director, Rob Engstrom, recently took a leave of absence to help Jeb Bush’s Presidential campaign get off the ground, a campaign whose core tenets of amnesty and Common Core are not going to mesh with the conservative base that votes in the primaries (issues that the Chamber proactively spent millions of dollars on last year).

With the House passed bill that stripped funding for amnesty about to be taken up by the Senate, the political gamesmanship has already begun and this is how it will play out.

Any amendments, especially the Aderholdt amendment, that strip funding for amnesty from the Department of Homeland Funding bill will mysteriously disappear in the black hole of principle called the Senate because, “The votes just aren’t there!” and “The President will veto this anyway, so why bother?”

While saying all the right things (as he is known to do), the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell is currently finding ways to remove the “offending” portions of the House bill to send it back to the House. The messaging will be, “Yes, we may have the House and the Senate, but without the White House, there is only so much we can do. We must avoid a government shutdown!”

Now, if this seems like a Charlie Brown moment for the conservative movement, you would be correct in that assumption. The GOP Establishment promised over and over again this past election cycle, “If you just put us on the field, we’re going to score for you!” Lucy-like, however, they are getting ready to yank the ball away at the last minute and as the conservative movement whiffs and wonders where the ball went, the Establishment will again reiterate to us, “There is nothing we can do right now. Give us two more years to set the stage for taking the White House and THEN we can really get stuff done around here.”

While many cheered the House vote last week, it was simply a show vote. The real vote is going to happen when the Senate sends its version of the House bill (stripped of any and all defunding amendments) back to the House and asks the House to pass it.

This is the vote conservatives need to pay attention to and expect their Members to fight the GOP leadership in both chambers. It is here that we must put the pressure on conservatives in the House to take down the rule.

If you flipped on the news or scrolled through Twitter, you couldn’t have missed the epic statement made by Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee this weekend.

At issue? President Obama’s executive amnesty. The two leading conservatives refused to let Obama’s unconstitutional actions venture on their merry way without a fight.

Just today, a federal judge ruled Obama’s actions were unconstitutional. But, of course, Sen. Harry Reid and his liberal friends will admit nothing of the sort. And most of them, as well as many Republicans, were whining all weekend about having to miss Christmas parties at home to work the weekend.

Sorry if the American people can’t muster up an ounce of sympathy for those complaining. Conservatives should be lauding Cruz and Lee for doing everything in their power to make this argument heard.

The lame duck congress is unfortunate for many reasons, but it boils down to this: The American people voted for a drastic change in leadership last month. It’s not okay for the losers to continue carrying out their failed policies — especially when conservatives have the opportunity to speak out.

The $1.1 trillion “CRomnibus” was irresponsible, full of unnecessary spending and plenty of issues unrelated to funding the government. At the end of the year, politicians get lazy — but not Cruz and Lee. They came to Washington for a reason — and it wasn’t to bow down to the status quo so they can make it home for the weekend Christmas party.

As former Senator Jim DeMint wrote: “There is absolutely zero debate within the Republican Party as to whether the President overstepped his constitutional authority or acted improperly.”

So why weren’t they backed by the entirety of the GOP? Now is the time to band together against the lawlessness represented by Obama’s amnesty — not criticize the guys making waves for the Left.

Republicans have a lot to prove in the next two years. With a starting point like this one, many conservatives are worried. But with leaders like Cruz and Lee standing up for the American people, there’s hope the majority will be heard and that valuable, long-term change will soon arise.

It seems that President Obama will do almost anything to secure the legacy he wants — even if that means making the American people dislike him.

His approval rating hasn’t been stellar for years, but he’s now at under 40% and things don’t seem to be moving in a positive direction, according to a Quinnipiac poll.

The recent dip is likely due to the drastic move he just made on immigration. In case you’ve been living under a rock, the President used executive action to implement his own personal immigration reform.

Last night, he was caught on tape admitting that he violated the Constitution, saying, “I just took action to change the law.”

He didn’t have to say it out loud for the truth to be revealed but it certainly solidifies what much of the nation already thinks.

And it’s not just a segment of people — it’s actually a widespread disapproval across party, age and gender. The under-30 Democrat crowd is excluded from that set but otherwise, it’s fair game from every angle.

According to the Hill, “only 48 percent of American voters now say illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. with a pathway to citizenship — down 9 percentage points from a year ago.”

There has been outcry from legal immigrants who came to the United States and went through the legal immigration process. So many toiled for years to become citizens and now, individuals who broke the law and crossed the border will get that same opportunity at much less a personal cost.

President Obama may achieve his dream of allowing amnesty in America, but the legacy of that will have more consequences than he can imagine.

Let’s be honest with ourselves: President Obama’s unilateral, dictatorial action on immigration is not to benefit illegals. It’s to punish American voters for rejecting him. This is personal. In two years, the next American president will let this and many other Obama executive orders expire. Executive orders are not law. They expire with the term…

Ask anyone running for Congress or higher office and they’ll tell you they want to reach millennial voters. They were a key demographic for President Obama’s 2008 victory and typically, voter turnout for that generation is rather low.

While it’s sometimes assumed that youth skew Left, things are actually changing. A new National Harvard Youth Poll shows that millennial voters prefer a Republican Congress by four percent right now.

Today’s youth were sold Obama’s promises but have gradually realized they were empty, even until the end. With only two years left under Obama, young people are reconsidering what they want in the next decade of their lives.

And it’s not just youth. Poll after poll has shown that key demographics are positioning themselves as swing voters or to the Right.

Despite the Democrats’ “war on women” rhetoric, many female voters have seen beyond it. The Left most often appeals to women on the basis of sex, birth control and abortion. It seems some young women have finally recognized how degrading and sexist that actually is.

Who else is eyeing the Right? Hispanics. A Pew Research Center poll showed that Hispanics are moving toward the GOP in higher numbers than ever. The same poll showed that 54% of registered Hispanic voters would vote for someone who disagrees with them on immigration reform, providing they share their views on most other issues.

The Left has many talking points for women, young people and minority communities – but they do very little besides spend lots of money in ways that are ineffective in the long run.

The cultural definition of what it means to be a Democrat has evolved from moderate to extreme Left – and these demographics may be realizing that’s not a place they want to be.

In the spring of 2013, the Senate passed the “Gang of 8” amnesty bill (S. 744), which created a framework to legalize the estimated 11 million people currently living in the country unlawfully. House Republicans wisely recognized the bill for what it was—a comprehensive amnesty package—and refused to act on it. In spite of congressional inaction, President Obama has attempted a variety of unilateral maneuvers to ignore current immigration laws.

Is President Obama planning unilateral action on amnesty?

In June 2012, the Obama Administration authored a memorandum, issued by then-Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to practice “prosecutorial discretion” towards unlawful minors. This process, sterilized by the administration’s labeling it Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), is one of the most flagrant instances of the President using government resources—in this case, law enforcement—to carry out a political agenda.

Press reports indicate the President may attempt to expand DACA after the midterm elections. By providing “legal protections” and work permits to a range of undocumented residents, this action could result in as many as 5 million new unlawful immigrants (roughly 50% of current illegal population) being included under the DACA umbrella.

DACA acted as a beacon of amnesty for an estimated 1.7 million unlawful minors. With these minors in perpetual limbo, the President and his bipartisan congressional coalition went in search of a long-term solution. Though avoiding prosecution or removal is tantamount to amnesty, it is not the official legalization the Left is seeking. The ENLIST Act was the logical next step. This bill would permit unlawful immigrants brought to the U.S. as minors a backdoor promise of citizenship in exchange for military service. In April 2014, Representative Jeff Denham (R-CA) launched a campaign in the House to attach ENLIST to the National Defense Authorization Act. The grassroots megaphone demanded accountability, however, and enough pressure was applied to bring down the bill.At the beginning of October, the administration issued yet another memorandum that will allow for a limited number of children in El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to apply for refugee status if they have relatives legally residing in the U.S. This policy is problematic in that it requires officials to justify the refugee status by loosening criteria. Although the change may be limited in scope, there is concern the administration would then use this as justification to offer asylum to thousands of children already here illegally (or on the border), amounting to a massive loophole for another administrative amnesty deal.

There is no such thing as a unilateral mechanism for altering U.S. law. President Obama continues to show his disregard for the Constitution by ignoring the separation of powers and administering policies as he sees fit. This practice is unfair to the citizens he purports to represent, as well as to those millions abroad who have applied for legal status the proper way and are waiting their turn.

The United States has a system of legal immigration in place which admits roughly 1 million people each year. Any change to this system that is not in keeping with the parameters of democratic process is nothing more than another entry in the pattern of unfairness endemic to Washington, DC.